Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 10, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

STAB IN THE BACK....Credit where it's due. Max Boot might be one of those crazy neocons, but he's not completely delusional. After surveying the conservative landscape and concluding that "a myth is likely to develop in which America's valiant fighting men and women were stabbed in the back by unpatriotic, even treasonous, reporters," he steps back and lists -- by name -- some of the reporters in Iraq who have done top notch work there:

If you wanted to figure out what was happening over the last four years, you would have been infinitely better off paying attention to their writing than to what the president or his top generals were saying. If we fail to achieve our goals in Iraq -- which the administration defines as a "unified, stable, democratic and secure nation" -- it won't be the fault of the ink-stained wretches or even their blow-dried TV counterparts. To argue otherwise deflects blame from those who deserve it, in the upper echelons of the administration and the armed forces. Perhaps that's the point.

Yep, that's the point all right. Conservative bloggers, who are being cynically used to spread this meme, should take note.

Kevin Drum 12:01 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

It's the libruls' fault, I tell ya! The libruls!

Posted by: Dinesh D'Sooza on January 10, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

I would add to that list Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times, who's doing some solid reporting from Somalia now.

Posted by: chaunceyatrest on January 10, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

They'll take note, alright. Without explanation, Max Boot will become a "liberal," or "insufficiently conservative," then they'll resume peddling the same lies and bullshit without shame or sense of irony.

Posted by: Killjoy on January 10, 2007 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Cynically being used, or cynically participating in the spread of this meme?

Posted by: cyntax on January 10, 2007 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Also add Michelle Malkin and Pajama Media for their scoops on Bush's killing of high level Al-Qaeda agents in Somalia.

Al

Posted by: Da Al on January 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Conservative bloggers, who are being cynically used to spread this meme, should take note.

That would be crediting them with the power of reason. Cult of personality worship doesn't work that way.

Posted by: Pennypacker on January 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

I'd also like to add Anthony Shadid of the WaPo and Sabrina Tavernise of the NYT as top-notch and brave reporters.

Posted by: Matt S on January 10, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

No, Boot is every bit as crazy as his ideological comrades-not-in-arms, but he works in the media and wants to keep on good terms with the powers that be (AKA the New York Times.)

Please note that Boot's list of journalistic heros is loaded with Timesmen, including John Burns (mouthpiece for the U.S. embassy in Baghdad), Dexter Filkins (peddler of fictional letters from Abu Zarqawi) and Michael Gordon (Judy Miller's co-conspirator in the WMD fraud).

Not mentioned: Any of the excellent reporters working for Knight Ridder/McClatchy, who have generally been the most perspicuous American journalists in and on Iraq.

I'm frequently bemused by the willingness of neolibs like Drum to give neocons the benefit of the doubt -- something our City College commissars are never willing to do in return.

Posted by: Peter Principle on January 10, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Max Boot will become a "liberal," or "insufficiently conservative," then they'll resume peddling the same lies

We have a winner! I mean, Andrew Sullivan was just named one of America's 20 Most Annoying Liberals!

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 10, 2007 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Good column, but Boot loses points for not mentioning ANYONE from the best reporting shop in Iraq hands down, the Knight-Ridder/McClatchy Baghdad bureau. A dumbfounding omission.

Posted by: Jim Henley on January 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

It isn't the onscene reporters who decide what's going to show up on the evening news, or the front page of the New York Times.

Fact remains, that if returning troops have anything at all in common, it's amazement and disgust with how the war has been covered in the media.

Even Boot's article has no illusions on this.

That isn't to deny that there has been some biased, slipshod news coverage. To my mind, there has been too much emphasis on American casualties and American abuses, both of which are low by historical standards. There has been too much Baghdad-centric reporting, which slights differing conditions in outlying regions. And, of course, in Iraq, as elsewhere, media coverage inevitably focuses on daily disasters at the expense of long-term trends.

...But by now the dismal conditions on the ground have caught up with, if not surpassed, the media's bleak outlook.

So, before now, over three years into the war, the media were not telling the real, balanced story?

Posted by: clockwatcher on January 10, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

I agree that a number of reporters have done an outstanding job in Iraq. Furthermore, no matter how bad the rest of the reporters are, the results of the war should be blamed (or credited) to the Bush Administration and the military.

Note that Boot's article is in a way a slam at reporters. Out of all the hundreds or thousands of reporters who have covered Iraq since the start of the war, Boot says that 12 have done an excellent job. It would be like "praising" Kevin Drum by saying that 12 of his columns in the last 3 1/2 years have been excellent.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 10, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

There will much back stabbing amongst the war advocates in the near future. Too bad they are not into seppuku, but we already know they are not honorable men.

Posted by: Brojo on January 10, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Another vote here for Knight-Ridder. Back when the NYT was still waving the flag for this debacle, and Judy Miller was breathlessly reporting every faux finding of WMD, Knight-Ridder stood almost alone in the reality-based community.

Call me paranoid, but I still wonder if that wasn't part of the reason that the "stockholders" suddenly demanded the chain be split up into pieces and sold...

Posted by: pdq on January 10, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK
Conservative bloggers, who are being cynically used to spread this meme, should take note.

You seem to think conservative bloggers are largely innocent dupes, rather than dedicated partisan propagandists.

I'm not sure I can buy that.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 10, 2007 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Dolchstosslegende!

Posted by: Kimmitt on January 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Click the link, Kevin, always click the link:

To my mind, there has been too much emphasis on American casualties and American abuses, both of which are low by historical standards. There has been too much Baghdad-centric reporting, which slights differing conditions in outlying regions. And, of course, in Iraq, as elsewhere, media coverage inevitably focuses on daily disasters at the expense of long-term trends.

Don't just cherry pick the parts you like.

Posted by: Al on January 10, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

I'm frequently bemused by the willingness of neolibs like Drum to give neocons the benefit of the doubt -- something our City College commissars are never willing to do in return.
Posted by: Peter Principle

The list of sensible liberals as Tom Tomorrow likes to call them is extremely lengthy.

Posted by: klyde on January 10, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

I was going to mention that Boot had left out a few especially excellent reporters, the Knight Ridder team in particular, but decided that was sort of a cheap shot. Seriously, the guy only had a paragraph and it was actually above and beyond the call of duty to name names at all. Most columnists would have just said "there are many excellent reporters in Iraq" and left it at that.

But he's still a crazy neocon.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on January 10, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

I'd add James Fallows of the Atlantic Monthly to the list as well.

Posted by: Matilde on January 10, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Al:

Boot's point was that even though the media may have exaggerated the violence early on (which some did)...violence really has reached catastrophic levels now. And that's not the media's fault.

Posted by: Nathan on January 10, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, and I would add Michael Ware att CNN and Richard Engel at MSNBC. Clearly their reporting is different in nature due to electronic v. print difference; nevertheless, has been by far the best (along with John Burns taped segments) on television.

Posted by: bmaz on January 10, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

AL-
Why does CNN hate freedom so much?
Why do newspapers hate Almerica?

I know, blame Canada. Pinko-commie-hippies.

Posted by: cboas on January 10, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Max Boot might be one of those crazy neocons

Might be?!

Posted by: Gregory on January 10, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

"cynically used"? As if they have no volition? They REVEL in this meme.

Posted by: Steve on January 10, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Boot mentions Ricks, author of *Fiasco*. That's huge. Ricks' *Fiasco* convinced Republican Sen. Gordon Smith to back out of supporting the war:

Last summer, on a flight from Portland, Ore., to Washington, Mr. Smith said he read *Fiasco*, a history of the Iraq war by Thomas E. Ricks, "and by the time I landed I was heartsick."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/washington/28smith.html?ei=5088&en=744a73cc8aed6842&ex=1324962000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Posted by: JJ on January 10, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

And George Packer too! Holy crap!

Posted by: JJ on January 10, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

It would be like "praising" Kevin Drum by saying that 12 of his columns in the last 3 1/2 years have been excellent.

Or like "praising" neocon "ex-liberal" by noting that a single one of his/her/its posts have been honest.

Except, of course, one couldn't do that.

Posted by: Gregory on January 10, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

JJ:

actually, John McCain refers to "Fiasco" constantly and recommends it to everyone as prime reading.

there are an awful lot of conservatives who think Iraq was the right thing to do but are convinced that Bush and Rumsfeld horribly bungled it.

I'd be more worried, if I was Kevin, with a meme developing among conservatives that Bush wasn't really a conservative.

Posted by: Nathan on January 10, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Boot's point was that even though the media may have exaggerated the violence early on

Well, if there's anyone who knows about exaggerating (and other ways to abuse the truth), it's Nathan...

Posted by: Gregory on January 10, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be more worried, if I was Kevin, with a meme developing among conservatives that Bush wasn't really a conservative.

Naw, we're used to conservative delusions.

I'd be more worried, if was a conservative, with the damage that Bush has done thier brand given that the American people have overwhelmingly accepted the obviousness of Bush's mendacity, incompetence and fecklessness. Small wonder they'd want to distance themselves from him, but after all that sucking up, it's far too late.

Posted by: Gregory on January 10, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be more worried, if I was Kevin, with a meme developing among conservatives that Bush wasn't really a conservative.

say what? that meme's been bouncing around Republican circles for years and years.

Posted by: Dinesh D'Sooza on January 10, 2007 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK
I'd be more worried, if I was Kevin, with a meme developing among conservatives that Bush wasn't really a conservative.

I wouldn't worry about that at all. Its an opportunity either to underline their dishonesty and hypocrisy or to drive a wedge between them and Bush's policies, which are genuinely conservative. It's win/win.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 10, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Al cherrypicking one of Mr. Boot's lies: 'To my mind, there has been too much emphasis on American casualties and American abuses, both of which are low by historical standards.'

The number of 'American Abuses' might be low by the standards of one other American war (Vietnam & I'm only conceding that for the sake of argument), but IMO, it is disgustingly high compared to all of our other wars. I wonder if Mr. Boot was including the historical standards of the Wehrmacht, Imperial Japanese Army, & Teutonic Knights when he wrote his malarky?

Posted by: Paul in KY on January 10, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be more worried, if I was Kevin, with a meme developing among conservatives that Bush wasn't really a conservative.

We liberals have been way ahead of you in predicting this was going to happen. "Conservative never fails, it is only failed."

I swear, listening to right-wingers is like having to listen to a bunch of college-age Marxists whining that "real Communism has never been tried."

Posted by: Tyro on January 10, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Look we won this war several times Bush decided it was good politics for him to stay in Iraq,They thought it was good for re-electing repubs.This war is riding on the shoulder's of the GOP.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on January 10, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Packer's indictment of the neoconservatives is devastating. And for all intents and purposes they're the architects of the war. I doubt we'd be there if it weren't for the Pentagon Cabal. It's a big deal that Boot mentions him.

Posted by: JJ on January 10, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Is Boot contradicting himself?

"There has been too much Baghdad-centric reporting, which slights differing conditions in outlying regions. And, of course, in Iraq, as elsewhere, media coverage inevitably focuses on daily disasters at the expense of long-term trends."

Which, of course, is another way of saying we're winning.

What long term trend? Maybe Boot and the Fox News gang can pack up Ms. Malkin and go report about what's going on outside the Green Zone. I'm sure Mr. Wilson is just itching to get there and bring back the good news about how well we're doing. And how many daily disasters does it take before they become the trend?


Posted by: zak822 on January 10, 2007 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

One other thing, We dems wanted the Iraq,s to pay for the war.Maybe if some of there marbles where involved they would be more interested in a quick resolve and get the Americans out of there.Like Kerry said He voted for the war but not for us to pay for it.Maybe the Neocons would like to pay us back the 500 billion they spent on Iraq.Money order please I do not trust any nonfiscal righty to write me a check.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on January 10, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

I'm surprised to say it, but props to Max on this one.

Posted by: Jimm on January 10, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see, the goals in Iraq used to be:

(1) secure WMDs;

(2) be welcomed with parades and singing;

(3) get the Iraqis to pay for the war with Iraqi oil profits (which the administration is now diverting to private interests in America, instead of the war debt);

(4) get democracy established throughout Iraq so that it is a shining beacon for the whole world;

(5) get democracy established in neighboring Muslim countries;

(6) stop terrorism in its tracks forever by removing the root causes;

(7) and as a result of several of the forgoing resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Wow. Oh for seven.

The administration has now reduced the goals of the war to achieving some small measure of security in a few isolated areas of Iraq long enough for Bush to flee the White House.

Nice.

Posted by: Google_This on January 10, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be more worried, if I was Kevin, with a meme developing among conservatives that Bush wasn't really a conservative.

Since the GOP Congress supported Bush in every respect, even lying and covering up for him, and repudiated virtually every aspect of their stated principles, I guess it is safe to say that the GOP is no longer a party of conservatives either.

So, where are "real" conservatives to go to find conservative candidates and will they really abandon the GOP which has clearly abandoned conservatism or is it simply true that few real conservatives actually exist in America, despite conservative claims that American conservatives are in the majority?

The real answer: the philosophy of conservatives has never been what conservatives claim it is. The philosophy of conservatism has always been "self first, self second, self third, and it there is any room left loyal supporters last. Forget about anybody else. What's left is the enemy."

Posted by: Google_This on January 10, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Max Boot truly believes in spreading democracy at gunpoint, and he therefore wants to understand why the effort failed in Iraq, and wants to hold the culprits accountable. Admittedly, the only reason he wants to hold these accounts is because he believes that such accounts will pave the way to future successes in spreading democracy at gunpoint.

What makes him a "crazy neocon" (redundant phrase, that, no?) is that despite his awareness of all the historical evidence that such efforts represent a queer mix of quixotic and chimerical, he still insists on believing that (with better execution) civilization can be imposed on the unwilling. In short, his political and historical premises are foolish, but his attitude toward evidence is not.

(He's also a true believer in the sense that he really believes in the moral imperative of waging "savage wars of peace" against tinpot dictators, and unlike other factional elements in the GOP, doesn't treat war as merely a cynical expedient for generating support for a revanchist domestic political agenda.)

Posted by: Nils on January 10, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan: . . . there are an awful lot of conservatives who think Iraq was the right thing to do but are convinced that Bush and Rumsfeld horribly bungled it.

Which means there are an awful lot of arrogant, self-deluded conservatives.

But we knew that already.

Nice to have confirmation, though.

The war was never capable of not being bungled.

It was the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.

That Bush and Rumsfeld (why in the hell you leave Cheney, Rice, and a host of other actors out of it is a mystery) were thoroughly incompetent merely means that the failure was worse than it should have been.

Posted by: Google_This on January 10, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

I still ask the questions . . .

Why are conservatives so eager to spend over 3000 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars (not to mention the good graces of the world after 9/11) to give a hand to Iraqis, most of which never lifted a finger to help themselves, but won't spend a dime to help hard-working Americans in need?

Why were conservatives so eager to denigrate and dismiss a virtually cost-free (certainly compared to Iraq) well-executed effort to stop real genocide and defeat real monsters in the slavic nations?

Posted by: Google_This on January 10, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Boot: There has been too much Baghdad-centric reporting, which slights differing conditions in outlying regions.

And, uh, why is that, Max? Is it because the likes of O'Reilly or Ingraham can't wander too far from the buffet line at the cafeteria in the Green Zone in the eight days they happen to be there?

Or maybe it's more like Lara Logan described on CNN's Reliable Sources:

..you can't travel around this country anymore without military protection. You can't travel without armed guards. You're not free to go every time there's a school opening or there's some reconstruction project that's being done.
We don't have the ability to go out and cover those. If they want to see a fair picture of what's happening in Iraq, then you have to first start with the security issue.
When journalists are free to move around this country, then they will be free to report on everything that's going on. But as long as you're a prisoner of the terrible security situation here, then that's going to be reflected in your coverage.

And later:

You don't think that I haven't been to the U.S. military and the State Department and the embassy and asked them over and over again, let's see the good stories, show us some of the good things that are going on? Oh, sorry, we can't take to you that school project, because if you put that on TV, they're going to be attacked about, the teachers are going to be killed, the children might be victims of attack.
Oh, sorry, we can't show this reconstruction project because then that's going to expose it to sabotage. And the last time we had journalists down here, the plant was attacked.

And still later:

I mean, I don't know any journalist that wants to just sit in a hotel room in Iraq. Does anybody understand that for us we used to be able to drive to Ramadi, we used to drive to Falluja, we used to drive to Najaf. We could travel all over this country without having to fly in military helicopters.
That's the only way we can move around here. So, it's when the military can accommodate us, if the military can accommodate us, then we can go out and see.

Just read the whole transcript. Yes, it's the one with Laura Ingraham...

Posted by: grape_crush on January 10, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan wrote: "I'd be more worried, if I was Kevin, with a meme developing among conservatives that Bush wasn't really a conservative."

Of course Bush isn't really a "conservative". He's a crook. He's the smirking, glad-handing, back-slapping, nickname-bestowing front man for a gang of career white-collar corporate criminals and war profiteers, led by Dick Cheney, who have masqueraded as "conservative" or "neo-conservative" politicians in order to dupe enough ignorant and gullible voters that they could seize power in a stolen election, and then loot the US Treasury, and use the US military to seize control of the vast oil reserves of the Middle East, all for corrupt purposes of financial gain for themselves and their ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in the military-industrial-petroleum complex.

They are like the crime gang in the first Bruce Willis Die Hard movie, who pretended to be political "terrorists" seizing hostages and making demands for the release of political prisoners, when in reality that was just a hoax to keep the cops and the FBI confused and buy time for the crooks to break into a high-tech vault to steal billions of dollars in negotiable bearer bonds.

If actual ideological conservatives begin waking up to this reality and crying out "Damn! We've been played for suckers!" that's all to the good.

It's a little bit late, though.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 10, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

cheez guys, yes this meme has been going around for a while.

my point was that I think this meme is more likely to continue to develop than Kevin's fear of a Vietnam-style meme that liberals and the media caused defeat....(and the media did f--- up its coverage of the Tet Offensive -- but that didn't lose Vietnam)

in other words, this time around the conservative meme won't be about liberals. enjoy it.

Posted by: Nathan on January 10, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas3.6 1/2 : "One other thing, We dems wanted the Iraq,s to pay for the war.Maybe if some of there marbles where involved they would be more interested in a quick resolve and get the Americans out of there.Like Kerry said He voted for the war but not for us to pay for it.Maybe the Neocons would like to pay us back the 500 billion they spent on Iraq.Money order please I do not trust any nonfiscal righty to write me a check."

Good point. It has been noted that the new profit sharing agreement, after the initial cost repayment period, will be about 2x the normal amount (20% instead of 10%). Perhaps those additional $ going to the oil companies should be massively taxed to pay America back for the war that gave them these profits in the first place.

Posted by: Gex on January 10, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan: . . . in other words, this time around the conservative meme won't be about liberals.

Sure it is.

Conservatives divide the world into two camps: good (conservatives) and evil (liberals/Iranians/Syrians/North Koreans/terrorists/etc).

This, if you are not a conservative, then you must be a liberal (we don't really think conservatives will trash Bush as secretly being Iranian, Syrian, North Korean, or a terrorist, although he is the latter, just not an Islamic one).

Hence, Bush was really a liberal in conservative disguise and it is the fault of liberals after all - they were in one big conspiracy with Bush.

Posted by: Google_This on January 10, 2007 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Google_This: "Conservatives divide the world into two camps: good (conservatives) and evil (liberals/Iranians/Syrians/North Koreans/terrorists/etc)."

This is why I am thinking of changing sides. I find that you can do exactly the same things (be gay, be gay and have kids, be addicted to drugs, get divorced, have affairs, have gov't spend money like it grows on trees, etc.) The only difference is that if you are liberal and you do those things you are a bad person. If you simply call yourself conservative, then you are a good person.

Posted by: Gex on January 10, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist on January 10, 2007 at 2:20 PM:

They are like the crime gang in the first Bruce Willis Die Hard movie...

Yup. And there's no cowboy on the inside to throw a wrench in their plans. Oh, and Alan Rickman's character was a better speaker...

Actually, I'm thinking this more and more: Dubya and Co. really don't care about the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a defense of America or some great experiment in nation-building...This fiasco in Iraq is a convenient mechanism for enriching a select group of people.

I can't call it war profiteering, because there's another example of exploiting a disaster for financial gain: the devastation of the gulf Coast after hurricane Katrina. Administration friendlies received blockbuster no-bid, cost-plus contracts to perform rebuilding tasks.

Call it crisis profiteering, perhaps.

Posted by: grape_crush on January 10, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

my point was that I think this meme is more likely to continue to develop than Kevin's fear of a Vietnam-style meme that liberals and the media caused defeat....

A rather startling assertion, given the rather obvious ground-laying for the Dolschtosslegenda going on even now, having been remarked upon in these forums (as I pointed out, ol' tbrosz was dusting off that bullshit argument ages ago).

But then again, rectitude was never your strong suit, Nathan. Or tbrosz's, for that matter.

in other words, this time around the conservative meme won't be about liberals. enjoy it.

Sure it will -- if Bush wasn't a conservative, then he must be liberal (in fact, I've seen it argued that invading Iraq on the grounds of humanitarianism and democracy -- as if those were the reasons at all -- is an essentially liberal project).

It's really hard to tell, this time, if Nathan's obtuseness is genuine, and merely delusional, or feigned, and therefore mendacious, especially given Nathan's lengthy track record of mendacity and ignorance.

Couple all that with how poorly Nathan expresses himself, and what is left to say but I pity Nathan's clients.

Posted by: Gregory on January 10, 2007 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Just happened to catch a bit of USDA prime wingnuttery from Boortz (sp?) on talkradio driving home from the 'ole annual physical today (some of you may be dissapointed, but the Doc says I'm going to live...).
He was stating as fact that everything with the wars was going great until the "democrat" party stabbed the dear Leader in the back. The moronic caller on the line of course agreed with every word.
The indisputable fact that "Frat Boy and the Rethugs" (the worst rock band of all time) drew up the set list from opener to encore get flushed right down the memory hole. If I didn't have such great blood pressure (112 over 70, thank you very much) I'd have had a myo right there in the car....

Posted by: steveconga on January 10, 2007 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Gex: This is why I am thinking of changing sides. I find that you can do exactly the same things (be gay, be gay and have kids, be addicted to drugs, get divorced, have affairs, have gov't spend money like it grows on trees, etc.) The only difference is that if you are liberal and you do those things you are a bad person. If you simply call yourself conservative, then you are a good person.

Nice!

Posted by: Google_This on January 10, 2007 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Well, as much I probably disgree with Max Boot ideologically as the rest of you, I have to recommend his recent book: "War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History: 1500 to Today". He sticks to the subject so you dont have to endure some ideological flogging. Give it a read!

Posted by: evermore on January 10, 2007 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

evermore wrote: Well, as much I probably disgree with Max Boot ideologically as the rest of you, I have to recommend his recent book: "War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History: 1500 to Today".

I'd rather read a book called "War Made Obsolete: How Humanity Finally Evolved Beyond War And Barely Avoided Extinction, 2007 To Today." Hopefully someday, someone will be able to write it. I don't think it will be Max Boot, though.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 10, 2007 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

When the costs of the war W. Bush started are imposed on the US economy, we will all become back stabbers.

We are all back stabbers now.

Back stabbing, the new ethic.

Escalate throwing the scapegoat under the bus to stabbing him in the back.

Back stabbing is a growth industry, invest now!

Escalate back stabbing to gang rape, family murder and incineration.

Posted by: Brojo on January 11, 2007 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

Of course the media should only report on positive developments and do nothing that could hurt the troops' morale. That approach worked so well for Germany and Italy in World War II.

Posted by: Vanya on January 11, 2007 at 6:21 AM | PERMALINK

"Escalate back stabbing to gang rape, family murder and incineration."

It's just a shot away.

Posted by: Peter Principle on January 11, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly